So far, I have been using 'labial flight' to refer to the loss
of labiality in pre-Tangut syllables with labial onsets and codas such
as *mbjvm 'to fly'. The labial codas in my examples
- actual or hypothetical - have been either *-m or *-w
(< *-k, *-ŋ). But pre-Tangut had one more
labial coda: *-p. Did it also condition labial
flight?

Here is the fate of pre-Tangut *-p according
to Guillaume Jacques (2014: 206)

Both Guillaume and I reconstruct the same six vowels (*u
*i *a *ə *e *o) for pre-Tangut. In theory, one might expect *-ep
and an *-əp (that merged with *-ip
and *-up?), but Guillaume only
reconstructed three possible codas for *e (*-ej,
*-en, *-eŋ; see p. 207) and no codas for *-ə.
The unbalanced distribution of vowels and codas in his pre-Tangut
deserve further study. (I never worked out all the possible
combinations of vowels and codas in my pre-Tangut.)

Stage 4: Dissimilation only occurred within
the same syllable. Presyllabic labial onsets followed by syllables
ending in labials remained intact.

I use the symbol *ǰ to represent a
pre-Tangut affricate that could have been [dʑ], [dʒ], or [dʐ]. I think
pre-Tangut palatals became retroflexes at some point before stage
6. *C represents the consonants *č,
*čh, and *ǰ that became Class VII
initials in Tangut.

The glide in *Cw- from *Pj-
could have been phonetically [ɥ] if preceded by a palatal onset.

Stage 5:*PV-j- fused
into *Pj-, filling the void left by *Pj-
that dissimilated to *Cw-.

In the past I have reconstructed Grade IV with a medial -i-,
and Gong reconstructed Grade III (equivalent to my Grades III and IV)
with a medial -j-. However, Tibetan transcriptions
of Tangut do not strongly support a palatal interpretation of Grades
III and IV.

- Pre-Tangut syllables with *e
developed Grade I unless followed by a high-vowel presyllable.

15.7.29.23:49: WAS
DISSIMILATION THE MOTIVE FOR LABIAL FLIGHT IN TANGUT?

So I suspect that pre-Tangut had a constraint against *PVP syllables
with
labial onsets and codas.

Such a constraint also exists in modern Cantonese. Earlier *PVP
sequences have become PVT: e.g.,

梵 Early Middle Chinese *buam >
Cantonese faan

法 Early Middle Chinese *puap
> Cantonese faat

In Cantonese, the coda became nonlabial, whereas in Tangut,
the coda disappeared entirely (or at least became nonlabial) in

4684 1me1 ([mej]?) < *mew
< *mek 'eye'

and the onset became a palatal-labial cluster in

2262 1jwon3 < *mbjvm
'bird/to fly'.

'Eye' indicates that dissimilation postdated the weakening of *-k
to *-w.

Guillaume did not provide any examples of labials becoming
palatals before *-aŋ. Given that *-aŋ
became Tangut -o (Jacques 2014: 193), there
might have been an
intermediate *-aw phase that predated
dissimilation:

Cwo3 < *Cwɔ
< *Cwaw < *Cwaɰ
< *Cwaŋ

The velar codas *-k (in 'eye') and *-ŋ
may have merged into a velar glide *-ɰ that became
a labial glide *-w conditioning
dissimilation in labial-initial syllables.

*7.29.23:57: 2313 is a
rare word without any known etymology. It may have been
borrowed from my (hypothetical) substratum 'Tangut B' language after
dissimilation (see above).

The name Mew written as 3412 may also be of Tangut B origin.

**7.30.0:18: Guillaume
uses Gong's reconstruction which has far more -w
than mine. Gong's -w corresponds to my -n
(symbolizing nasalization and not a coda [n]) after o
in his rhyme group XI (rhymes 56-60 and 97-98):

Rhyme

Gong

This site

56

-ow

-on1

57

-iow

-on2

58

-jow

-on3/-on4

59

-ioow

-on'2

60

-joow

-on'3/-on'4

97

-owr

-orn1

98

-jowr

-orn4

However, Gong and I agree that his rhyme group IX
(rhymes 44-49 and 93-94) had -w:

Rhyme

Gong

This site

44

-ew

-ew1

45

-iew

-ew2

46

-jiw

-ew3, -ew4

47

-iw3, -iw4

48

-eew

-ew'1

49

-jiiw

-iw'3, -iw'4

93

-ewr

-ewr1

94

-jiwr

-iwr4

2313 and 3412 are the only examples of
labial-initial syllables in rhyme group IX.

On the one hand, if *mbj- became j-,
wouldn't other *Class I (labial)-j-sequences also
become Class VII initials*?

On the other hand, if Class I (labial)-j-sequences
became Class VII initials, why does 5954 still have a labial initial?

I propose the following changes to solve that
conundrum:

1. *pj-> chw-3
(2331 2chwon3 'to contribute'?)

2. *(m)bj- > jw-3
(2262 1jwon3 'to fly')

3. *pV-j- > *pj-
> p-4 (5954 2porn4
'luxuriant, exuberant'?)

New *Pj-sequences from old *PV-j-
sequences replaced old *Pj-sequences that became *Cw-sequences
(*C = Class VII initial):

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

*Pj-

*Cw-

Cw-3

*PV-j-

*Pj-

P-4

*phj- and *mj- would
hypothetically become chhw-3 and nw-4
(via *ɲw-), but Tangut has no *chhwon3
or *nwon4.

*(m)bV-j- would hypothetically
become b-4, but Tangut has no *bon4
because presyllables probably did not have voiced or prenasalized
initials.

7.29.12:19: If 0421 were a native word, I could propose

4. *phV-j- > *phj-
> ph-4

but I doubt that
aspirates were permissible in presyllables. I expect presyllables to
only have a subset of segments that are permissible in the syllables
that follow them.

*Guillaume follows Gong
and reconstructs Class VII as palatal, but I prefer to regard it as
retroflex. My notation is not IPA and can accomodate either
interpretation: e.g., j- may be palatal [dʑ] or
retroflex [dʐ].

2262 1jwon3 can be either a noun 'bird' or
a verb 'to fly'. Which meaning is primary? Which meaning is older? (The
answer to those two questions may not be the same; a newer usage can
outnumber an older one.)

5981 1a0 can also mean 'one' before nouns.
Can 5981 2262 1a0 1jwon3 ever mean 'one bird'
instead of 'flew'? If we did not have the Chinese edition, would it be
possible to translate that line as 'a bird rose into the air'?

It doesn't make sense to interpret 3349 2rer4
as 'direction' after 'important' or 'to desire, want'. Nishida
translated it as 'aspects' in English and treated it as the object of
the verb in his Japanese translation. There is no Tangut postposition
corresponding to the Japanese locative postposition ni
in his translation.

I would like to see more examples of constructions like this.

*7.27.1:01: It is curious
that Tangut shares a 'one' with the Qiang languages
but not with Pumi which may be its closest living relative according to
Jacques (2014).